Arms are the Mark of a Free Manhttp://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress
Hilario: "Everyone wears a gun."; Chris: "Sure. Same as they wears pants. That's expected." -- The Magnificent SevenTue, 19 May 2015 23:31:53 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2Non-Compliancehttp://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2015/05/non-compliance/
http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2015/05/non-compliance/#commentsTue, 19 May 2015 21:37:45 +0000http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/?p=433Continue reading Non-Compliance→]]>[Adapted from the fakebook.]

In North Carolina we have an antiquated, Jim Crow era Pistol Purchase Permit that only 2 or 3 other states have. It is required to get one even for private sales of handguns. So we essentially do have UBCs for handguns, at least.

We are in the process, via House Bill 562, of trying to get this repealed, and are, once again, just like two years ago, facing opposition from our anti-liberty, pro-tyranny (as ‘discretion’ is the very definition of tyranny: the Rule of Men vs. the Rule of Law) NC Sheriffs’ Association. And Bloomberg is spending his millions under the auspices of the demanding mommies.

But what was interesting is that, through a few phone calls to DAs and court clerks, it’s been discovered that selling a pistol in a private sale without a PPP (or a Concealed Handgun Permit, which suffices according to statute as well) isn’t something that is ever used in any prosecution. I.e.: it is never enforced and is likely ignored by most private sellers and buyers.

Technically, the seller is not even required to take possession of the PPP or ask to see the CHP. And even if you do, you can put it in the circular file or shred it and not be in violation of the law. And the way the law is written, even an FFL dealer is not required to take possession of the PPP, though you’d be hard pressed to find one that wouldn’t. Both the CHP and PPP are good for five years. And therein lies the problem for our sheriffs: they can issue a PPP and a year later, the recipient could commit a crime that makes him ‘prohibited person’. Yet he can go buy a gun without a background check *at an FFL*, because the NICS check was already done. There is a mechanism for the CHP to be revoked, but not the PPP.

Now, mind you, I’m not in support of the requirement for a PPP, CHP, or even a NICS check. They are all useless and infringements on the human right to keep and bear arms. But my point is that the PPP, NC’s UBC for handguns, is largely ignored by buyers and sellers.

But we’re still pikers compared to the guys and gals in WA. They’ve stared down Leviathan and caused him to blink. We’re unlikely to face the degree of state-level tyranny they do now in WA. At least not in the near term. I pray that if we ever do, there will be enough brave souls to stand against it as they have.

As us techies say in the field of computers, the protocols underlying the internet were designed to detect censorship and to route around it.

Free thinking people have a similar constitution. We detect problematic public policy imposed by the greedy, power mad collectivists and we route around it.

Though Zero and his Odramabots (aka Democrats, aka ‘progressives’, aka communists, aka all-around jackasses — hey, don’t look at me, they picked their own mascot) have succeeded in forcing socialized medicine down our throats (policy-wise, at least for the time being), they will not corral us into their bureaucratic nightmare without a fight.

Yeah, the VA is such a success story for socialized medicine. Too bad dozens of dead veterans is harshing that mellow, now isn’t it.

I will admit that the passage of the (un)Affordable Care Act is having one (but only one) positive outcome. And that is the destruction of the status quo and the rise of something better. Even the notoriously left-wing Washington Post has noticed. Note the clueless critiques from many of the commenters. Sean Parnell of The Self-Pay Patient blog has some good debunking of the promoters of the bureaucracy here.

I told at least a few government supremacists on Facebook and elsewhere that we would destroy this intolerable act by any means necessary. Defund, Dismantle, Destroy, Defy, and hopefully, eventually Repeal. Right now, we are in the Destroy phase. More power to thesemedicalcostsharingprograms, and any others that I have missed. The unintended consequence of the rise of these options, it is hoped, is that it will financially bankrupt the morally bankrupt system of the ACA.

One day when I eventually leave my current job, I will likely sign up and tell my new employer that if he likes his benefit package, he can keep it.

I’ll keep my own money, at least for the most part, and pay for the coverage I want. I won’t being paying hiked up premiums (I am unmarried, with no kids, and have a higher than average income, so I ain’t gettin’ any subsidies), contributing to your subsidies, or paying any penalties.

So pay for your own abortions, sex-changes, and birth control, you little twit.

]]>http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2014/06/obamacare-destroying-it-legally/feed/0Gunshot Wound to the Headhttp://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2014/06/gunshot-wound-to-the-head/
http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2014/06/gunshot-wound-to-the-head/#commentsWed, 04 Jun 2014 18:05:33 +0000http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/?p=405Continue reading Gunshot Wound to the Head→]]>Object lesson: Never, NEVER, take off your eye protection while shooting, especially in an indoor range. I didn’t, but if for some stupid reason I had, it’s only about two inches above my eyes.

I could have SO much fun with this.

Anyone got a bandaid with a picture of a bullet hole on it?

I shot myself in the head!

Take a hacksaw to a bullet and glue the rear half to a bandaid so it looks like it’s half inside the hole in my head. “NO, Don’t pull it out! It’s holding my brains in!”

Fun aside, be safe out there, folks. This hurt like hell. Blood all over the place, as with any head injury. Nasty welt and it’s still a little sore (happened around 7:00pm last night). Thought it might turn black and blue, today, but it hasn’t. Still swollen, though. Thankfully far enough from the eyes that I didn’t get a black eye. No stitches required, just a butterfly bandage. It was a ricochet off the back stop of the range. This was a .38 special round. Glad I wasn’t shooting .357 Magnum out of my Ruger Security Six at the time.

Really had crappy luck last night. To top it off, after dinner I headed home and not more than half a mile from the restaurant, got rear ended. Actually, it was a three car collision. Lucky for me, I was the car in front of the stack and got jostled a bit but no injuries and nothing but scuff marks on the rear bumper of my BMW. Middle car (a subcompact) not so lucky getting squished at both ends, and the passenger needed a ride in an ambulance to the hospital. No apparent blood or broken bones, but she was crying about abdominal pain. Woman who hit the guy who hit me was driving a big-ass 1980 Buick. Hood, front grill, and probably radiator, fan and fan belt damage. She was the one cited, of course. Good, because she let slip that she was talking on the phone when it happened. Lived here forever, but didn’t know where the hell she was and she wasn’t even far from home. Hmmph. People.

Stay Dangerous, My Friends. (To others, not yourself!)

]]>http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2014/06/gunshot-wound-to-the-head/feed/2Only One Sane Answerhttp://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2014/05/only-one-sane-answer/
http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2014/05/only-one-sane-answer/#commentsWed, 28 May 2014 17:19:26 +0000http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/?p=399Continue reading Only One Sane Answer→]]>Ever hear the lie that “nobody wants to take your guns”? Well, for anyone who says that, calmly refer them to this Guns Saves Lives article from last year and this one from David L. Burkhead. The first one has some dead Youtube links, but the descriptions remain. The second one is updated whenever someone for ‘reasonableguncommonsafetysense’ lets the cat out of the bag.

Sometimes the only sane answer to a request to start dialogue or have a conversation about guns is, “No!” For the past 100+ years, every single time we have agreed to compromise on guns, it has meant that the enemies of liberty will agree to take just a wee bit less of our liberty than they originally intended. This time.

No. I do not want to have a conversation about guns. I only want to threaten legislators with the loss of their seats if they dare infringe any further on the right to keep and bear arms. I will also remind them that if they should not heed my warning, then I, along with vast numbers of others, will defy their new orders thereby destroying their legitimacy in the process (“just powers” come from the “consent of the government” — if I have to cite the source, we have other problems). As has been done in both Connecticut and New York.

If the “90% of gun owners are in favor of universal background checks” claim were not a lie, their side would not be requesting a “dialogue”. They would be drafting laws that would pass with barely any resistance. No. We do not need to engage them. We only need to smack them down in the legislatures. We need to send them home to weep that they are the tiniest of tiny minorities

Say it loudly, and say it often. No. They need to convince us. And they won’t ever convince us. There is no cost to us to cut off conversations early and just say, “No!” Tell them to go away and cry themselves to sleep that they are one of a tiny, tiny minority, with nothing to offer a free people other than to put them in chains.

In it, he explains what many government supremacists will never understand. And that it is that they can go ahead and attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment, because as much as they try to lie about it, that is, in fact, what they want. But, although it would most certainly affect the life of the Free Man on a day-to-day basis, it does not, in fact, affect what my rights are in the slightest.

Government does not administer rights. The only proper role of government is to protected pre-existing rights.

Here is what Herschel says:

I have weapons because God gives me the right to own weapons, not the second amendment. The opinions of the people are as subject to the vicissitudes of ideology as the times in which they live, and the mind of man cannot be entrusted with the rights of mankind. If Mr. King is placing his trust in the people, he is building his house on sand.

My rights are what they are by divine pronouncement. It is righteous to own guns because it reflects the character of the Almighty. Without this I’m no different than the statist thugs and collectivists who want to disarm me, except we happen to be on different sides of an issue. It means everything … everything … to be right and righteous.

“It is righteous to own guns because it reflects the character of the Almighty.” That ought to put a wad in some people’s panties. As it should.

[Trying to get out of the habit of putting stuff like this on Facebook and instead putting it here and letting the WP plugin put it on Facebook. Maybe my posting will be regular if I commit to that. No promises, yet, but I’m going to try to pay attention to this blog more.]

]]>http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2014/04/the-righteousness-of-owning-guns-or-putting-wads-in-the-pacifists-panties-2/feed/0Drawing a Medical Line in the Sandhttp://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2014/01/drawing-a-medical-line-in-the-sand/
http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2014/01/drawing-a-medical-line-in-the-sand/#commentsFri, 03 Jan 2014 20:44:18 +0000http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/?p=364Continue reading Drawing a Medical Line in the Sand→]]>Recently, I found this pamphlet posted on a bulletin board:

It was behind a glass cover, so I couldn’t covertly remove it to read it. So, when back at a computer, I fired up search engine to see if I could find out at least where it came from and, if I got lucky, the full contents of the pamphlet.

Well, I stopped my search early after finding this article from about a year ago on Parents magazine website with the presumptuous title of A Pediatrician’s Role in the Gun Debate as if any pediatrician has any legitimate role in the gun debate beyond that of any other citizen. (I’ll go further with a Rand quote: “A gun is not an argument.” In other words, there is no debate to have at all. The answer is quite simply, “No.”)

David Codrea has publicized how one enterprising former sheriff addressed the problem of doctors, any doctors, claiming to have training above and beyond the medical and into the “safety” and particularly “gun safety” realm with this Firearms Malpractice Form. It is something which I would recommend every gun owner carry with him to appointments with doctors they haven’t seen before or, in this day in age with the new, horrid requirements of health control, to appointments with any and all doctors.

It’s clear from the comments on the aforementioned Parents article, as well as the article itself, that many so-called safety advocates don’t quite get the objection to having a doctor ask a patient about guns. One went as far as saying, “A doctor’s job is to help keep your child alive by keeping them healthy and safe.”

Let me be clear: The doctor’s job is what I hire him to do. And that is to advise me on strictly medical issues. Notwithstanding wannabee pseudo-scientific, tyrant enablers and modern day Typhoid Marys of today like Dr. Garen Wintemute , guns are not a public health issue. Nor are guns a private health issue. I don’t go to my auto mechanic for advice on gardening. What the vile citizen disarmament advocates have done for a few decades, now, is try reframe the debate over and and over again by changing names of their organizations, and how they try to sell their tyrannical collectivism. This is exactly what Wintemute acknowledges in a paper he co-authored in the Annals of Internal Medicine just last year by referencing former editor of Annals, Dr. Frank Davidoff who called on readers to ‘reframe gun violence as a medical issue.’ One is inclined to ask, why do you need to reframe anything at all, if you’re not trying to manipulate the conversation? Why is reframing necessary, unless you are trying to pedal something that is simply not true.

It all comes down to where the training, skills, and experience of those in medical profession are bounded. Professionally speaking, of course. I’m perfectly willing to listen to a doctor explain to me the details of the damage to flesh and bone I could expect to see from a small, rounded metal object a bit short of one half inch in diameter, propelled at 800ft/s and entering and remaining inside me or exiting out another hole it makes in my body. I am not, however, willing to grant him any deference in discussing what guns I might own, that I keep in my house, or in what state I keep them in nor the ammunition that goes with them. That is something I will only discuss with a true firearms safety instructor, such as the many produced, through training, by the NRA. Or maybe I’ll discuss it with other trusted individuals whom I deem knowledgeable in the area of self defense, safe carriage, safe handling, child education issues (including child curiosity, and ways to mitigate it). If, that is, I discuss it with anyone at all.

I know several individuals who grew up in homes where guns were not only kept in the house, but kept either loaded or with the ammunition very close at hand. They were also not locked in a safe. A recommended approach is twofold. First, start education young. If at all possible, do not ever refuse to engage in a little education and training regarding firearms any time the child asks. One of the key goals here is to kill the mystery and curiosity of guns. You want to make guns literally boring to the child. For more excellent information on kids and guns, Kathy Jackson of The Cornered Cat has written some excellent pieces and it’s worth your time to peruse her site and read her book.

Second, or really just a subset of the first, is to ensure there is seriousness embedded in training the child. If necessary, embed a literal fear of punishment for even touching the firearms without permission. (I’m not even touching the issue of what that punishment should be. But whatever severity you decide as a parent is necessary for any infractions, the severity of this should be at or near the highest on your list.) Be sure to include the rare, but possible necessary exception of using the gun for what it is intended: defense, when age appropriate (as you determine, not any kind of doctor). Take this case of Kendra St. Clair:

Now, Ms. St. Clair, by her own admission, had never fired a gun before. That is something I hope her mom will remedy, now, and take her to the range and teach her all she needs to know about safe firearm handling and self defense. It is fortunate that the correct individual wound up with a hole through his body. Proper training will increase the odds of a similar result if, God forbid, anything like that happens to her again. It’s also not clear whether or not the gun was locked up, as neither Kendra nor her mom say. She did call her mom first and it was then that her mom actually told her to get the gun. But that may not always be possible.

I do my best to stay out of doctors’ offices. And with the current regime in the District of Criminals (who bring absolute truth to that slur), I’m going to make every effort to continue along those lines. But should I ever set foot in a doctor’s office again, I will be armed with the Firearms Malpractice Form stuffed in my pocket and prepared to politely ignore any inquiry regarding firearms and simply say, “So. Are we going to talk about my health? Or was I mistaken in thinking I would find a doctor here?”

In other words, to any doctor who would attempt to venture outside the boundaries I dictate while I request his professional advice, whether for myself or any dependents I may have, I have drawn my line in the sand. And you can go pound same.

To answer the title of article titled A Pediatrician’s Role in the Gun Debate is easy: None.

Stay Dangerous, My Friends.

]]>http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2014/01/drawing-a-medical-line-in-the-sand/feed/1On Shouting Our Rights From the Rooftops and “Sensitivity”http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2013/12/on-shouting-our-rights-from-the-rooftops-and-sensitivity/
http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2013/12/on-shouting-our-rights-from-the-rooftops-and-sensitivity/#commentsSun, 15 Dec 2013 01:11:01 +0000http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/?p=358Continue reading On Shouting Our Rights From the Rooftops and “Sensitivity”→]]>I don’t really do twitter, other than now having this blog connected to post a link to new posts on my twitter account. But I do read my feed of a whopping 32 other twits (sorry…couldn’t resist) that I follow on occasion.

Well today, due to the obvious solemn anniversary, the anti-freedom nutcases are flooding twitter, and I’m sure other social media, with demands that I give up my rights so they can have a false sense of security.

One point of interest came up that I brought up last year to people complaining that I and others were politicizing a tragedy. There’s incredible hypocrisy from the anti-freedom extremists that insists that we don’t politicize it. All while they merrily go on their way politicizing it themselves by demanding that legislators steal more of our liberties.

So I stand on the rooftop and declare my human, God-given right, codified in the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is one particular whiner, @lscotthoover that felt the conversation was getting tiresome. Tough. You or your allies demand action on a tragic anniversary and expect us to keep our mouths shut and just take it up the back end.

I have one answer.

NO.

Your move, you whiny little piss-ant.

He thought it was ‘unnecessary’, ‘insenstive,’ and ‘uncool’ that someone quoted Article 1, Section 21 of the PA constitution (their RKBA section, I presume).

Due to tyrants and their enablers using this tragedy yet again to ramp up action to put more weight on the boot already on our collective necks, it is not only necessary that we speak out on this day about our rights, but urgently required.

Anyone who thinks it is insensitive should tell the people around him begging for more control of the population, accelerating us faster toward tyranny, to shut their mouths and stop politicizing it themselves. In fact, I would gladly make a deal that I’m sure all my gunny friends will go along with. You demand that every gun control bill in every state, in every county, in every city or town, that is currently being considered the day before this anniversary next year is withdrawn, every newspaper holds off on all editorials relating the lack of more restrictions on our human right to keep and bear arms, twitter and facebook users go silent on their ‘demands’ that I give up more of my rights. You convince all parties to do that next year and they follow through, then I will keep quiet next year, too.

Otherwise, go play in traffic.

As to whether or not it is cool, contrary to what many on your side often accuse us of, we aren’t interested in being ‘cool.’ YOU may be interested in looking cool to your peers, but most of us understand that that’s primarily a gang mentality.

I will speak my mind. At all times. You do not own this day.

Stay Dangerous, My Friends.

]]>http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2013/12/on-shouting-our-rights-from-the-rooftops-and-sensitivity/feed/1More “Zero Tolerance” Idiocyhttp://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2013/12/more-zero-tolerance-idiocy/
http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/2013/12/more-zero-tolerance-idiocy/#commentsThu, 05 Dec 2013 21:28:51 +0000http://www.markofafreeman.net/wordpress/?p=354Continue reading More “Zero Tolerance” Idiocy→]]>Notwithstanding the fact that the imaginary ‘device’ the kid pretended to use was not a firearm (and if Johnny’s teacher really said that in an email to his mother, she shouldn’t be allowed near children, much less teaching them), there’s still something else even more disturbing in this article.

The Rutherford Institute claims it has been called to intervene in hundreds of cases like this.

Hundreds.

Given that many parents likely, stupidly take this kind of crap lying down, and that even among those who don’t, they won’t all go to The Rutherford Institute for help (there are many organizations and individual lawyers who would help, after all), I’m inclined to believe there have been tens of thousands of these cases.

If I worked in a school, I would post this on a bulletin board just to see if someone was dumb enough to call for a ‘lock down’ of the school because there was a gun in the building: